Thompson v. MO Bd of Probation, et al
| Douglas W. Thompson |
| Missouri Board of Probation and Parole and Gary L. Henman |
| 4:1992cv00888 |
| May 7, 1992 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri |
| St. Louis Office |
| Within US but Outside District |
| John A. Ross |
| General |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
75
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for Relief Pursuant to Rule 60(d)(3), Fraud on the Court and/or A Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction on Retrial Charge 69 is DENIED to the extent the motion is treated as a Rule 60(d)(3) motion, and DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction as a second or successive habeas petition in all other respects. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion to Expedite 74 is DENIED as moot.. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 11/7/19. (KKS)
|
|
Filing
57
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for Relief from Judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) 49 is DENIED to the extent the motion is treated as a Rule 60(b) motion, and DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction as a second or successive habeas petition in all other respects. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability as Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a federal constitutional right. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 3/26/2018. (CLO)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Missouri Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
